DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation of “a binder material comprising a polymer of molecular weight greater than 800 kilo-Dalton or polyvinylidene fluoride modified by an acid” is being interpreted as defining a binder comprising (polymer of molecular weight 800 kD OR polyvinylidene fluoride) modified by an acid. Clarification is requested as to whether the claim intended to cover the option of the binder material being just any polymer with a molecular weight greater than 800 kD and the acid was only modifying the PVDF.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeou et al. (US 10109863).
With regards to claim 1, Yeou teaches an electrode for a lithium ion battery (abstract) comprising an electrochemically active material comprising lithium (col 11 ln 31-36, col 11 ln 48-53), an electrically conductive material comprising carbon (col 13 ln 47-53) and a binder material (col 11 ln 31-36). Yeou teaches that the binder material comprises polyvinylidene fluoride that is modified by an acid (col 3 ln 14-64, col 5 ln 39-64) such as a carboxylic acid or sulfonic acid.
With regards to claim 2, Yeou teaches that the electrochemically active material is 97.8 percent by weight of the electrode (Example 1, col 16 ln 49-54).
With regards to claims 4, 5 and 20, Yeou teaches using 1.2 percent by weight conductive material such as carbon black (Example 1, col 16 ln 49-54).
With regards to claims 6, 7 and 17, Yeou explicitly teaches using 1.5 parts by 100 weight binder in the electrode (col 11 ln 6-7).
With regards to claims 8 and 10-11, Yeou teaches using an active material with phosphate polyanion including LiFePO4 (col 12 ln 15-16, Lithium Iron Phosphate being a phospho-olivine).
With regards to claim 13, Yeou teaches Li(3-f)J2(PO4)3 in which J includes vanadium (V) and f ranges from 0-2 which thus includes LiV2(PO4)3 (col 12 ln 15-41).
With regards to claim 14, Yeou teaches that the conductive material includes carbon black or acetylene black (col 13 ln 47-52).
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2024/0154127).
With regards to claim 1, Han teaches an electrode for a lithium ion battery (Abstract) comprising an electrochemically active material comprising lithium, a conductive material comprising carbon and a fluorine-based binder (¶ 0011, 0096). Han teaches that the fluorine-based binder includes polyvinylidene fluoride modified by an acid (¶ 0083, 0088-0089, -COOH being carboxyl resulting from carboxylic acid functionalization) in which the molecular weight of the modified PVDF (second binder with polar groups) is 800 kDa or greater as 800,000 g/mol equates to 800 kDa.
With regards to claims 2, 3 and 16, Han teaches using specifically 96.7% active material (Example 1, Table 1).
With regards to claims 4, 5 and 20, Han teaches using 0.8 (Table 1) as well as 1.3 wt% (¶ 0097) explicitly for the conductive material.
With regards to claim 6, 7 and 17, Han teaches explicitly 1.2% binder (¶ 0098) and 2% binder (Example 2, Table 1).
With regards to claims 8, 10 and 11, Han teaches using LiFePO4 (Table 1).
With regards to claim 9, Han teaches using a surface area of 9-16 m2/g (¶ 0079).
With regards to claim 12, Han teaches LiMnxFey(PO4-) in which x+y=1 (¶ 0023-0029).
With regards to claim 14, Han teaches the conductive material includes carbon black, acetylene black, and carbon nanotubes (¶ 0096).
With regards to claim 18, Han teaches an explicit value of 900 kDa (¶ 0089).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeou et al. (US 10109863).
With regards to claims 3 and 16, Yeou teaches that the binder amount in the electrode can range from 0.5-5 percent by weight of the electrode (col 11 ln 1-5) and provides an exemplary workable amount of the conducting agent of 1.2% (Example 1). The balance of the electrode is the active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize 96-97.5 or 96.5-97.25% active material through routine optimization of the workable range of binder content taught by Yeou. The binder content is discussed in Yeou to effect adhesiveness, flexibility, discharge capacity and energy density and thus one of ordinary skill would reasonably experiment with the binder content as a result effective variable.
With regards to claim 18, Yeou teaches using a polymer with a molecular weight ranging from 500,000 g/mol to 1,500,000 g/mol (col 5 ln 30-38) which is equivalent to 500-1500 kDa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize 800-1200 kDa through routine experimentation barring a showing of unexpected results as the molecular weight of the polymer is known to affect adhesiveness (col 5 ln 30-38) and stability of the slurry (col 6 ln 51-63) as discussed in Yeou.
With regards to claim 19, Yeou teaches that the polar monomer (the acidic functional group) may be included in a range from 0-9 mol% (col 5 ln 17-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize 0.1 milliequivalents per dry gram of polymer or more through routine experimentation of the amount of polar groups as such has an effect on the solvent resistance and adhesiveness (col 5 ln 10-16).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeou et al. (US 10109863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2004/0005265).
With regards to claim 9, Yeou teaches an active material including a phosphate polyanion; however, Yeou is silent with regards to the surface area of the active material. Yeou explicitly teaches using lithium iron phosphate and other lithium metal phosphates (col 12 ln 15-41).
In the same field of endeavor of lithium battery electrode materials, Chiang teaches a compound for the electrode including lithium iron phosphate olivine structures (¶ 0011, 0048) intended for use with PVDF binder (¶ 0036) in which the particles are formed with a surface area of at least about 10 m2/g (¶ 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a surface area of at least 10 m2/g in Yeou as taught by Chiang as both relate to phospho-olivine active materials for use with PVDF binder in a lithium battery presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and Yeou is silent with respect to surface area prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
With regards to claim 12, Yeou does not explicitly teach the claimed compound; however, as discussed in Chiang a suitable active material for a lithium metal phosphate includes LiMnxFey(PO4-) in which x+y=1 (¶ 0063, 0076-0077, composition 9a1 in Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the active material of Yeou for the Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate of Chiang as both relate to Lithium Iron Phosphate active materials presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution of known prior art phosphate active materials yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeou et al. (US 10109863) in view of Sugawara et al. (US 2020/0365901).
With regards to claim 14, Yeou teaches a variety of carbon conductive agents, but does not explicitly teach a combination of acetylene black and MWCNT or furnace black and MWCNT.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sugawara teaches conductive material paste for electrodes in lithium ion secondary batteries (Abstract, 0002) comprising a mixture of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and other carbon materials (¶ 0045) similar to the conductive materials of Yeou. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a combination of MWCNT and acetylene black as both are known carbon conductive agents for use in lithium ion active material electrodes presenting a reasonable expectation of success and doing so utilizes known materials for their intended purpose in which the art demonstrates predictability in their combination together as discussed in Sugawara.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonnet et al. (US 2010/0255378) teaches a functionalized PVDF composition (Abstract) for use in battery electrodes (¶ 0130-0135).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights